Discussion Main / Musicians

I'll try to help.

Probably should get working on that essay now...

Well, I failed.

Probably should get working on that essay now...

Hey, maan, just contribute what you can. There's a lot of artists there and one person can't be expected to get descriptions for all of them.

I don't think it's necessary to add descriptions. That's the exact purpose of the opening text in every page, right?

One Nation Under WiFi

Literature.The Cheetah Girls has now been moved to Film.The Cheetah Girls.

At some point, we (maybe I) should move the above artists to pages without hyphens.

You can't use Apocalyptica as an allegory; I tried to toss a hot tip next to them and their guests as well, which you deleted. The truth is, all of these rules you're enforcing were largely created by you. Unlike That Other Wiki, we don't have a styles-guide. So unless you plan to discuss putting one together with with Fast Eddie, there's literally no grounds to support your arbitrary order.

What do you have against a move as simple as this? It harms nothing and no one; I've said in an above discussion that there's no such thing as too many hot tips. If you want to hold onto that system you've invented so tightly that it compromises the convenience of the reader, then this discussion's over.

I'm not enforcing any "rules." It's a matter of consistency. If we were to add hot tips for guest musicians on Avenged Sevenfold and Apocalyptica, we'd have to add them for Avantasia, Ayreon, Kamelot, etc. We'd have massive and confusing lists of people that aren't even members of these bands. Either do it for every artist on the index or don't do it at all is all I'm saying.

You, on the other hand, are calling my attempts to make things less confusing arbitrary for no other reason than your disagreement. Make a case for your side and tell me what makes Apocalyptica and Avenged Sevenfold so different that we need to associate them with artists that they aren't really associated with based on guest musicians.

Also, as I pointed out, Mike Portnoy isn't a member of Dream Theater any more and we don't have a page for him personally. You've disagreed with me listing Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson, so don't try to tell me that Portnoy needs to be listed himself.

This page is an index, so its purpose is to list off pages and make it easier for people to find what they're looking for, not to inform people of guest members of the bands listed. If you think guest musicians are important to note, do so on the pages of the bands involved.

Edited by Xaris

Go looks above at an earlier discussion; I've given a mildly detailed explanation as to why Apocalyptica is worth a hot tip. Also, if you look at Peter Gabriel's hot tip, you'll notice a link to Tony Levin, a King Crimson member without his own page. Basically, this sort of move has been done, and there's little standing in its way besides you.

Let me ask about your "consistency" argument; what is the line that makes one related artist "count" while another one doesn't? Even if we could put together a set of vague/inflexible, hard-fast rules, would the examples be self-regulated by the editors on a case-by-case basis, or do you personally plan to enforce such a thing? Unless you have a deep understanding of every single performer on this list, I don't see how you or anyone would be able to meaningfully/fairly police such a thing.

What you're arguing here it a losing battle: are you honestly interested in taking every single hot tip that gets created here to discussion to see why it merits its existence? I've rarely, if ever seen people explain the reasoning behind the hot tips they add, and I don't see why they should have to. I'd rather, if possible, let the editors and frequenters do as they please without having to be interrogated about it. Because that's essentially the natural extreme of what you're trying to do here.

And that last paragraph? Did I honestly just read you saying in a roundabout way that hot tips amount to clutter, or aren't necessary? I won't even go into how many things are wrong with that.

Anyway, if you read another above discussion, you'll see I've made a move to start listing related artist within their pages to better explain the hot tips, but it hasn't taken off yet (the Foo Fighters page is a good start, though). I've already done this with most of the Alternative section, so you can feel free to help out if you like.

Your explanation for guest musicians is confusing and doesn't explain much adequately.

A related act is not a single member of one band that played in a guest position of another band. Again, this would prevent giant lists for bands like Apocalyptica, Ayreon or Avantasia. If I had noticed the Peter Gabriel/Tony Levin case, I would have most likely removed it.

If you wanted to argue that Slayer was related to Apocalyptica for similar reason to why we have Kamelot and Conception linked, however then I wouldn't argue. I wouldn't entirely agree, but I wouldn't argue. Shared band members that have caused otherwise unrelated bands to be related I think would count. In this example, Avenged Sevenfold and Dream Theater are not related as Portnoy's involvement with Avenged Sevenfold haven't brought the two bands together (and, in fact, is arguably part of the reason for Portnoy's departure from Dream Theater.) However, if you wanted to list Portnoy as related on A 7 X's page, then I would both not argue and would actually agree with the move.

Also, again, what makes Apocalyptica so special that we should mark their guest musicians, but not anyone else's? Why are their guest musicians considered related, but not Avantasia's or Ayreon's? Your argument is that its part of their act. Its the same with the other two bands. That is what I mean by consistency. You're telling me that I would have to police the page and keep things consistent, but yet, you wouldn't if you think your argument is in the right?

As for your claim that I called the hot tips "clutter," I did not. I simply stated that single members with less than a major amount of guest appearances are not enough to connect two otherwise unrelated artists. For this reason, if you want to link, say, Masterplan and Avantasia due to Jorn Lande's frequent and prominent guest appearances, then I could see your reasoning and wouldn't argue. Again, I wouldn't completely agree, but I wouldn't argue. Of course, if you want to get technical, the hot tips aren't necessary, but they are helpful in pointing out artists that work together.

As for what makes acts related and what doesn't, let's look at, say, Black Sabbath and Ozzy. This is similar to my Kamelot/Conception example in that a key member of both acts is critical to the history of both acts. This doesn't include side projects as I don't think I have to explain how side projects are related.

How about this, let's see what the other tropers think. If they agree with you, I'll back off. If they agree with me, you'll back off. I'd say we've both made out cases and we're not likely to get anywhere if we keep arguing back and forth.

Finally, I've noticed the move to start listing related acts and have made efforts to assist with it.

Edited by Xaris

While that sounds like a nice thought, I'm doubtful it's going to happen; no one ever visits discussion areas, let alone happens across a Wall of Text this far down the page. Even if they do, the chances they'll want to chime in are even less likely. Nope, no chance of that happening.

All in all, give me a chance to get my ideas out. First off, I honestly don't care about Avantasia, Ayreon, or any other examples you may want to offer as an equivalent; I listen to maybe a handful of the artists on this index, and have no plans to expand my tastes to the degree that I'd be able to sensibly make sweeping decisions on how they fit here. If you have any problems with consistency, go fix them once the decisions are made. People seem too disturbingly afraid to move or change anything on this page, it seems.

Lastly, I'll answer your major question with another question: You're asking "What makes Apocalyptica so special", I'd like to ask "Why not?". Do you have a substantial reason why we should avoid hot tips in the way that you're proposing? Whether we like it or not, it's going to happen: people will list connections, they probably won't explain those connections or bother to create a "Related Acts" floatbox within the page itself, and I have no interest in forcing them to. Because that's basically what this is about: just another controversial edit.

To be honest, I find the extreme that I'm proposing (discretionless hot tipping) far preferable to your's. Instead of worrying over which ones count and which ones don't, I'd rather we merely accept them all (aside from the particularly dumb ones). Instead of burdening ourselves on policing something as harmless as this, let the hot tips be. We're not administrators, after all  ^*

.

Ok, so you're saying that if I want my ideas to go through, then I have to personally police the page and make sure artists I don't listen to stay consistent, but you don't have to? That's what I'd like to call a double standard.

And I'm not saying to avoid hot tips altogether. I'm against excessive hot tips for guest musicians that otherwise don't affect the act they played as a guest on. I like hot tips for bands that are actually related. I add them where I think they're useful. Again, I stress that hot tips are NOT needed, but are a meant as a convenience.

I mean, I see your point for Apocalyptica, but since the guest vocalists are both very numerous in number and don't link the bands in question outside of their appearance on Apocalyptica's albums/performances, I am against linking them.

Please don't pretend that I'm making any attempt at antagonizing you; I never said you had to do anything. I'm only telling you the ramifications of your course of action. Is it wrong to assume that you'd be prepared to take on the task inherent with your idea? Because I don't have much confidence that you'd be able to convince anyone else to help you.

I'm not trying to toss a needless*

burden on your shoulders, but it seems to me that you're the only one that cares this much (if anything, you're bringing the burden on yourself). It's not that I want to overload on hot tips, I just think this entire problem is a non-issue. You yourself are calling hot tips a convenience; a convenience's job is to simplify things, but your complaints are just complicating them (left alone, they could become one of this page's most useful tools).

I'm sorry, but I still haven't figured out the logic behind anything you've said so far. You already said "Do it for every artist on the index or don't do it at all", so can I take that to mean you really want to deeply analyze every single hot tip that comes by? Since it's obvious you don't, should I assume your stances are contradicting each other?

Please, give me some solid reasoning behind your ideas, or I'll have to ignore them.

Edited by Alucard

I never stated that you were antagonizing me. I do in fact think you are somewhat insulted that someone disagrees with your idea as, even in your first response, you've claimed that I'm trying to make "arbitrary rules," but that's beside the point.

All I did was point out your double standard. You claimed that the "ramifications" of my idea who require me to police the whole damn page, but yet, if your idea goes through, you don't have to. I have to analyze every hot tip, but you don't have to make sure that every artist is hottiped with every single guest musician, even if they only appear on one song.

Again, I cite Avantasia and Ayreon. You claimed that Apocalyptica should have hottips for their guests because its part of their gimmick, but then you turned around and stated that you don't have to worry about Avantasia and Ayreon because you "don't care."

I never stated any fucking intent to make sure all of the hottips are correct, but you're basically claiming that I have. I simply stated that a guest position isn't enough to connect two otherwise unrelated acts together. Most of these guest positions are only for one song.

As for Portnoy: HE ISN'T A MEMBER OF DREAM THEATER ANYMORE AND THEREFOR IS NOT RELATED TO THEM. WE DON'T HAVE A PAGE FOR HIM, SO THERE IS NO REASON TO HOTTIP HIM AS RELATED TO AVENGED SEVENFOLD EVEN IF HE WERE ASSOCIATED TO THEM BEYOND A GUEST SPOT.

You've blown this out of proportion. All I did was delete an edit I disagreed with and stated my reasons for the disagreement. You've put words in my mouth, ignored my reasoning, called me a hypocrite and have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in the process.

I have stated it multiple times and you seem to completely fucking miss it: I am not against hottips, I am against excessive hottips because this page is an index and is meant to show people where to go to find pages with actual information on them. If guest musicians are important, then list them on the pages themselves, but as they don't link the bands together, then they should not be hottiped on the index because THEY AREN'T FUCKING RELATED.

Edited by Xaris

Well I can't say I'm able to take you seriously anymore.

I'll give you some advice to live by: the longer people argue for, the more they tend to convince themselves they're correct, reaffirming an unpolished conviction or corrupting a good one; imagine two dense, inflexible objects bashing into each other. So either you calm down and treat your opinion more similarly to a mailable gel/clay or I'm disregarding you.

I'll try to explain this one more time: your intentions don't matter. Whether you plan to police this page isn't the point; the fact that you can whine about this one incident makes it obvious that this is going to happen again: people will come here demanding reasoning behind associations, complaining when their favorite artist doesn't get similar treatment.

Like it or not, this direction means constant policing. Ignored, cases like this will pile up over time. I don't want to deal with that and you don't either. So in simple words, let it go. Let this go now and you don't have to do anything; this entire argument never happens again. Let people make whatever connections they want and we can never look at this problem again.

Edited by Alucard

Buddy, you're the one ignoring my reasoning and the one who started this whole mess. Don't try to push it on me. Again, all I did was revert an edit I disagreed with and stated my reasons here to avoid an edit war.

You're not even listening anymore, are you? Stop treating me like an enemy, everything you've said bleeds hostility. And isn't it illogical for you to admit to reverting an edit you disagreed with, then tell me I started this? You could've left that alone.

And it's not that I'm ignoring your points, you just don't have any; as far as I can tell, you're doing this because you hate being argued with. Everything you've said has amounted to "This counts, this doesn't", "I like this more" and "You're wrong" while I've been trying to point out to you that there's no way to consistently or meaningfully descern between one ambiguous relation and another (as we've proven here, band relationships are subjective). Your "points" don't have any over-arching reasoning behind them beyond an opinion; by this point I think you're continuing out of pride.

I already said earlier that without a style-guide there's no support for what you're trying to do. Reversing that, what is there to support my logic? Nothing, honestly, my path is just convenient; accepting all hot tips instead of arguing about them. Your path looks destructive and unprogressive to me.

Now let this go or you're going to find yourself doing this in the future. And if you're going to reply out of anger, you may as well concede (the "last word" is overrated).

Let's look at how I opened this discussion:

"Ok, I have to disagree with marking Mike Portnoy as related to Avenged Sevenfold. He's not a member of the band and was only featured as a guest on one album and one tour. Not to mention that he's also no longer a member of Dream Theater. Considering that we don't have a page for Portnoy himself and there's no real reason to give him his own page as he has not started doing any solo work, plus the fact that we don't have massive lists of "related" acts for guest musicians under Avantasia, Apocalyptica and Ayreon, I don't agree with marking him as related."

What part of that is me saying "this counts, but that doesn't?" You're the one who can't see to get that all I did was remove an edit I disagreed with. You're the one who said "Apocalyptica doesn't count." You're the one who is ignoring that we don't have a page for Mike Portnoy as part of my reasoning. You're the one who has blown this out of proportion. Not to mention that you've failed to give reason why Apocalyptica's guests should be marked, but not Avantasia or Ayreon besides you not caring.

Further, what part of that is confrontational? I didn't get angry until you claimed that you weren't "antagonizing" me, which I never claimed that you were before then. Again, you've been putting words in my mouth with that and the claim that I intended to police the whole damn page.

You may not. Anything other than major genres would just confuse artist placement. Alternative just happens to be a large genre, there's nothing that can be done about it (though if there were a way to make folders within folders, then there'd be no problem).

As far as I can tell, we've hit nearly every major form of popular music. Aside from possibly psychedelic/acid/stoner rock, there's nothing left.

*

EDIT: On second thought, you could look into making an Avant-garde/Experimental folder, which till now I've lumped in with Progressive rock*

^{I considered such a folder when I categorized these, but there's weren't enough applicable artists at the time. Maybe that's changed}

. It might solve the problem with the bloated alternative folder more than a psychedelic folder would.

EDIT 2: Here's another possibility; of all the genres I found the most difficult to work with, nothing stuck out as much as Rap-Rock; I basically had no idea where to put most of them. I even had Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit under rock for a while, which caused some confusion and got Zebrahead place under rock as well (they're under punk atm); Brokencyde has been another problem in this regard. It never occurred to me to actually make a folder for it (I generally go with which they are more, usually lumping them under alternative). Sure, it's a fusion-genre, but it's a fusion of two very unlike styles; it could work.

Edited by Alucard

Your inability to answer that question yourself pretty clearly indicates that it is a stub that deserves cutting. Put on the Cut List.

See you in the discussion pages.

If you think they should have a page, that means you should make it. Works Pages Are A Free Launch, and the same goes for creators.

Note that Super Junior and SHI Nee both have pages already, though...

132 is the rudest number.

Comedy is indeed a genre—although it's more of a subgenre. There's a metal (meaning its sound is metal) band out there whose entire premise is silly songs (and no, it's not SOAD). You ever hear that song that's all about Beer?

Yeah, that's them. The song is aptly titled "BEER!!!!", four exclamation points and everything.

And I have no idea what a "[natural] music approach" is.

filthy elf lover

I'm pretty sure that's Psychostick.

Anyway, what I'd like to see done is to have an index devoted to comic/novelty musicians which can be a sub-category of Comedy Tropes and this page. Here, they attract people to add comics with a slight musical approach, or entertainers who use music for a comical approach instead of the other way around. We don't need that.

I'm not saying purge them all; just get rid of the ones who aren't recording musicians. People who are more likely to get a TV series instead of a record deal; people who are more acts than they are groups.

Once the non-musical artists are filtered out, we can disperse the folder and send the remaining groups to their actual genres.

I'll go through and remove all the instances of Crowning Music Of Awesome and Your Mileage May Vary that aren't explained. For trope-less artists, I'll try and add a trope list to the ones that I know. I can't guarantee total success with any of these, however.

As for cutting the more obscure artists, No. Just... No. Why would it be necessary, anyway?

Edited by Lordnecronus last.fm | RYM

I'm sorry, it was just that inadequate (trope-less, piss-poor description, etc.) pages for artists you've never heard of is kind of glaring.

Edited by KitsuneInferno "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Could you give me a couple of examples of obscure artists with inadequate pages? I can recognise an inadequate page, but I'm not very good at identifying when an artist is obscure unless they're really obscure.

last.fm | RYM

Meh, I'll just list most of the pages I find inadequate.

• Ryan Adams: Trope-less, but I can't guess how popular he is.
• Eben Brooks: No real description and hardly any elaboration on the few tropes present.
• Dead Can Dance: Trope-less.
• Maximum The Hormone: Okay, I actually know who these guys are, but no tropes.
• Mazzy Star: Decent description, but only one trope.
• Parenthetical Girls: Bare-bones.
• Pavement: Trope-less.
• Ride: Skeletal description.
• The Tiger Lillies: Trope-less.

• The Arrogant Worms: Trope-less.
• Level 80 Elite Tauren Chieftain: Again, I know who they are, but they're trope-less.
• Anders Matthesen: Trope-less.

• Ani Di Franco: Only one trope.
• Paul Simon: Okay, he's not obscure, but he is without a trope.

• Captain Dan And The Scurvy Crew: Bare-bones description.
• Flobots: Not obscure, but it's hardly a page.
• Body Count: I know these guys, but they're still trope-less.
• Lil Jon: Just atrocious to look at.
• Ice Cube: Nowhere near obscure, but trope-less.
• Sir Mix A Lot: Trope-less.

• Michael Bublé: Trope-less.
• Bobby Darin: Same as above.
• Scatman John: This too.

• Apocalyptica: Surprisingly trope-less.
• Atheist: Once again, trope-less.
• Avenged Sevenfold: Three for three.
• Battlelore: Skeletal.
• Danzig: Seriously, "one of the darker heavy metal bands" is all there's to say about muthafuckin' Danzig?
• Darkthrone: Trope-less.
• Emperor: Only one trope.
• Ihsahn: Trope-less, minimal description.
• Mike Patton: Trope-less.
• Conception: Trope-less...
• Lacuna Coil: Could use a better description.
• Manowar: Same.
• Marduk: Hardly a page.
• Mayhem: These nutty bastards should at least have a few tropes.
• Scar Symmetry: Might need a more expansive description.
• Sigh: Trope-less.
• Scars On Broadway: Tropes aren't elaborated upon.
• Theocracy: Trope-less.
• Twisted Sister: Half of the tropes aren't elaborated upon.
• White Wizzard: The description's a little iffy, it's almost as if it was started by their PR guy.
• X Japan: Not for a lack of tropes, but rather too much. Does every member really warrant their own page? I like the band too, but that's a bit much.

• Bauhaus: Trope-less.
• Wall Of Voodoo: Same.

• Aqua: No tropes.
• Shirley Bassey: Same.
• Choro Club: Tropes. None.
• Dashboard Confessional: Holy shit, something different! An absolute lack of a description.
• Yoko Kanno: Surprisingly, trope-less.
• The Seatbelts: Same.
• Katrina And The Waves: Yep, trope-less.
• Adam Lambert: Do I even have to say it?
• Puffy Ami Yumi: Trope... you get the idea.
• Randy Newman: No. Fucking. Trope.
• Barbra Streisand: ARGH. Tropes. Lacking.

• The Moody Blues: Seriously, a kitten dies every time a page is allowed to emerge without any tropes.
• Devin Townsend: For every good Canadian artist that goes without a trope, another Nickelback comes into existance.

• Bikini Kill: Tropes, tropes, tropes. Where are the fucking tropes?
• Black Flag: For the love of Arceus, there's only two of them!
• Dropkick Murphys: Puppies shall suffer for every trope-less page!
• Greeley Estates: Crap description.
• Green Day: The lack of tropes makes me want to disembowel goldfish.
• Lit: Barely there.
• Nina Hagen: I slit my wrists. I complain about missing tropes while slitting my wrists.
• Sex Pistols: Tropes are part of a nutritious breakfast. Use 'em.

• Aretha Franklin: I once was lost... and so are the tropes.
• New Edition: Tropes. Not there. Like my patience.
• Janet Jackson: And my sanity.
• TLC: And dignity.
• Barry White: ...does it even need to be said?
• Stevie Wonder: Apparently, YES.

• Chickenfoot: Ah, a change of pace. Only one trope.
• Alter Bridge: Mother of fuck....
• Eagles Of Death Metal: For every trope-less page, I shall eat a baby.
• The Fugs: Starting with yours.
• The Grateful Dead: I can wait.
• REO Speedwagon: As long as it takes. Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan improved the page, but still needs more.
• Rod Stewart: Y'know what? I'll just make sure you never have any.

Edited by dxman "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

I must take responsibility for the Ani Di Franco page. I have no idea why I created it. I don't even listen to her. Apparently, nobody else listens to her either. Please, cutlist it.

Will try to add examples to Sigh and Darkthrone pages soon.

Edited by MasterInferno Somehow you know that the time is right.

Hm, that's... quite a big list.

I take responsibility for the Black Flag page; when I wrote it, I was a bit ashamed of its state, but forgot to do anything about it. I'm actually surprised that's the only page there of mine.

I'll work on the pages for Atheist and Mayhem first; considering that they're good pages aside from the lack of trope lists, it should be easy.

last.fm | RYM

Doublepost FTW.

I've added trope lists to Atheist and Mayhem; see what you think of them. I'll try and focus on the Black Flag page now.

last.fm | RYM

Tropes are up on Sigh. Darkthrone will probably follow suit tomorrow, or the day after at the latest.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

I don't see any reason to cut them because they lack tropes, because most of them do have legitimate information on them (a few of them are actually quite long). So for instance, Green Day bring up wicks in 118 pages, passing it into the Creator Overdosed level. Basically, it's a major page as far as musicians go.

I like to think of creator pages as Useful Notes sections. If anything, the question of tropeless pages being cut should be brought to the forums (I know that the admins don't like small pages, I've never seen them fuss over a tropeless page).

Darkthrone has tropes now. Please someone add some more, I'm having trouble thinking of them at the moment.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

I was wondering if anyone could create a Maxwell and Nicki Minaj page since I'm already working on one, Girls Generation

I was wondering if anyone could create a Maxwell and Nicki Minaj page since I'm already working on one, Girls Generation.

Added a few tropes lists (other than the REO one). Paul Simon, Katrina And The Waves, Randy Newman, Barbra Streisand, The Moody Blues, and Aretha Franklin are slightly improved.

There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney

I'd like to apologise for all the pages in that list that are my fault (Paul Simon, Katrina, Pavement, Mazzy Star, Bikini Kill, The Seatbelts). In my defense... nah, I have no defense. I just abandoned them and waited for Wiki Magic. Sorry! :(

Probably should get working on that essay now...

I've added tropes to Yoko Kanno and The Seatbelts. I'll see what else I can improve...

Probably should get working on that essay now...

Pop isn't really a genre; its purpose on this page is mostly to describe the state of the group/act in relation to the business. The Beatles, for instance, can as a whole be best described as pop, but their importance to rock music takes precedence over the enterprise they represent. JAM Project is most known for Anison music and soundtracks, setting them under pop.

Ask the thread above started by Kitsune Inferno. Bare-bones pages are apparently inadequate, so at least a few tropes listed and a reasonably in-depth description are in order.

Edited by Alucard

Right. I'll put that off a bit until I can think of more tropes.

Probably should get working on that essay now...

I've always found her very folk-ish myself. One uncontroversial categorization could be country.

I don't think she'd fit in rock or pop very well.

Either rock or folk.

...

You wrote a page for Turbonegro? Strange. When I checked the page for Turbonegro, it was blank. That was why I removed it.

EDIT: And now there is an article. This is incredibly odd...

Edited by Lordnecronus last.fm | RYM

writing takes time

So you put the link up before starting the article? That must be it, then.

I apologise for removing it. I wasn't aware you were going to start an article on it at the time.

last.fm | RYM

Normally, you're supposed to index a page after writing it to avoid this.

Fast Eddie often says that every page is supposed to look as if it's in its finished state, for the convenience of the reader. Red links at any time are frowned upon.

The Beatles and Wings have a member in common. And if we move one, we probably should move both: the difference in style between later Beatles songs whose authorship can be traced to Macca and the earlier hits of Wings is subtle...

But I would be happy to give Wings its own place in an index. I'm not sure which subindex yet, but I can guess.

There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney

I was only asking because the other bands with members in common have asterisks. For example, Whitesnake at one point had David Coverdale, Jon Lord, and Ian Paice, all former members of Deep Purple, yet it is asterisked. Same with Dio and Rainbow, who have Ronnie James Dio in common. Yet Wings was its own band and it's still listed under the Beatles.

...

Moved Wings. Case closed.

...

Pretty much, but does that mean Eminem can be linked to 50 Cent and Dr. Dre, if he ever gets a page? And what of the Collision Course EP Linkin Park did with Jay-Z?

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Collision Course was a full collaboration, so I think it counts, and Eminem and Dre have a major history, but what kind of relationship does Eminem have with 50 cent? Apparently Eminem was the reason that 50 was signed, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond that. Please explain.

They collaborate fairly often, but it's not as often as I thought. Em's usually one of the executive producers of 50's albums and contributes a few tracks, but I think only around three or less per album. Going by that logic, Porcupine Tree ought to be linked to Opeth.

Edited by KitsuneInferno "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

I suppose there's no such thing as too many hottips. They are for the sake of convenience after all, so I think we can approach this with a lax attitude. Feel free to link the two.

I just hope the page doesn't become a mess.

Edited by Alucard

Hmm... I say we turn the "Rock" folder into "Rock/Blues", and use it for both rock (non-prog-punk-metal-alt) and straight-up blues, as well as fusions of the two. That seems to be the simplest solution from where I'm standing sitting. I don't know how well this solution would go down with some people, though, and some might think of it as silly that metal, punk and prog get their own sections while "normal" rock has to share its section with blues.

I'm also up for placing Cream underneath Eric Clapton; if this happens, though, does that mean that Faith No More (and, if/when they get pages, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, etc.) would be placed underneath Mike Patton?

Edited by Lordnecronus last.fm | RYM

And there we have another problem: He was also associated with The Yard Birds, so if Jeff Beck gets a page, where do we place him? And on that note, if Jimmy Page got a page, do we still keep him under Led Zeppelin?

I think we may have to employ [[hottip:*:hot tips]] indicating "Also see" or something to that effect. It may be a good way to clear up the controversy surrounding Body Count and Ice T. If we did that, we could stop including solo artists under genres they don't fit in (for instance, Phil Collins being listed under Genesis in Prog even though he's a successful Pop artist as well).

This is all just speculation. There's a chance it could make things more confusing for the readers. They'd think "You mean I have to open different folders for related artists? EPICFAIL!!11!!". We use underlining for convenience, and it works.

Edited by Alucard

Hot tips would be a good idea, but as you point out, some readers might be too lazy to open another folder just to see related artists. But it seems like something we could definitely implement.

I'm guessing the hot-tip-related-artists-thing would go something like this —

• The Yardbirds  ^{related artists}
  ^{Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page}
• Cream  ^{related artists}
  ^{Eric Clapton}
• Eric Clapton  ^{related artists}
  ^{Cream, The Yardbirds}
• Ice T  ^{related artists}
  ^{Body Count}
• Body Count  ^{related artists}
  ^{Ice T}

— so every artist page would have its own individual entry in its proper section, even if listed in a hot tip as a related artist. And, of course, a related artist would not be listed in the hot tip until they had an article here, same as we can't put an artist on the main list until they've got an article.

EDIT: I just noticed it might clutter up the list a bit; luckily, it won't be done for most artists.

Edited by Lordnecronus last.fm | RYM

Before proceeding with such a project, I'd like to get some consent from the other frequenters of this page. We can't just go making decisions on our own  ^*

I was hoping that if we do go with hottips, we could instead use Asterisks (*) to keep the pages less cluttered. I've always hoped that this list would be a rather clean page without any writing on it, but we seem to be heading in that direction.

Anyway, this hottips concept if nothing else clears up the problem with Eric Clapton, Cream, and Blues in general. Since we'll be keeping Blues around, we'll have to do as I said before and keep it extremely exclusive. Clapton will be sent to Blues while the Cream stay in Rock  ^*

Edited by Alucard

You got my consent. I thought Eric Clapton was more of a blues-rock artist than regular blues, but since my only source is The Other Wiki, I'm not one to judge.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Anyone else want to get their word in?

If not, I'll be going through with this project by the weekend.

Edited by Alucard

I guess it's pretty clear what my stance on this is already, but I'll say it anyway: you've got my consent too.

last.fm | RYM

Christian rock is more of an umbrella term to point out the band's beliefs, so they shouldn't be put under their own category.

Okay, I'll add them to the corresponding genre, then. Thanks!

You called me bad and I posed like a gutter queen in a dress sewn of knives.

We've already determined prog metal to go under prog, same with prog rock.

The same with Tool and The Doors. Or Alice In Chains as an alternative band, or Ministry, Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson as electronic artists. They're all metal or rock in some way.

Half this list is probably rock, so we go with whatever they more-so are. We could call Rage Against The Machine rock or rap, but they fit in best with metal.

Edited by Alucard